1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000, and the term of lease from June 29, 2012 to June 18, 2014, on the premise that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the two-storys of Seoul, Gangnam-gu and E ground FF buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the aim of subleting the instant building to a third party, and the Defendant also consented to sublet the instant building to a third party upon knowing the same purpose at the time of entering into the lease agreement. As such, the Defendant is obligated not to interfere with the Plaintiff’s subleting business.

However, from the end of November 2012, the Defendant interfered with the sub-lease business of the instant building by: (a) notifying the competent authority that the sub-lessee does not have consented to the sub-lease; (b) proposing that the sub-lessee would make a direct payment to the Defendant by stating that the sub-lessee would not complete business registration to conduct business in the instant building; or (c) proposing that the sub-lessee would make a direct lease contract with the Defendant.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff terminated the above lease contract on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit of KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spent KRW 100,000,000 for interior works to repair the defects of the instant building, and KRW 1,567,50 for electrical shipbuilding works. This constitutes each necessary cost or beneficial cost, and the Defendant is obligated to refund the above construction cost of KRW 101,567,50 to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 626 of the Civil Act.

Since the parties who entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant are non-corporate associations that are not the Defendant, they cannot respond to the instant claim filed against the Defendant, not the parties to the lease agreement.

Judgment

The key issue of this case is this case.